I, like celticwolf, am confused by the question. I'm guessing (and this is usually a bad idea) that you're asking something along the lines of "what's adequate", based on the post previous to yours.

To answer your question, I think the number is quite large - a couple hundred feet before you can get away with not being noticed at a cache.

Changing the rule from 25' to 50' to avoid being seen by muggles probably won't have that much effect. Changing the rule from 25' to 50' for other reasons (having the cache be found by a muggle) may be more significant. Hopefully this can be changed in the future._________________Hmm...

I'd say 20 per park is at least a better situation than previously, and evidence that, even as new as our activity of geocaching is, parks are beginning to recognize that it's a valid use of park areas. I'm guessing it's going to be a slow process due to the nature of government and the fact even geocachers can't agree if it's a game or sport or hobby, but it's a good start I know I'd prefer just standard GC.com rules, but it's at least better than it was...

And personally, I feel that reasonable for one person is whatever they can activly maintain at a high quality for a good cache. I'd say, refering to the "micro spew" thread, since there is a limit on the caches in these parks I'd hate to see a lamp post micro taking one of those limits, but Paklid/Posen style camo would keep me entertained for hours...as well as tough caches like Lair (stupid limestone ). And actively maintained would be another one I'd look at...personally I'm so lazy I'm guessing I'd have trouble maintaining any more than 10 active caches, but that's just me...and Posen's proving he's willing to run out and maintain his plethora so it's all good

But that's just my thoughts...and I'm silly so who knows what they're worth

However, as an abuser of the overkill ruling, I can see some sportsmanship in leaving a few spots for others in a park (any park). We have new cachers joining all the time...and we need to leave room for their hides...yet our old hides, such as the ones already in the three-rivers parks, stay there...eventually, in most parks, the Posen grid will need to be used. We hide many and remove few...

We are a young organization, and if you did a graph of cachers joining/caches hidden, I'm sure you'd see a sharp increase that will eventually grid out any metro area...so in Three Rivers Park, how many is overkill? I usually let my approver tell me when to stop, but I'm very glad the park board is not the one telling when to stop.

I just submitted a couple caches to Three Rivers for consideration and talked for awhile with Marlene (who administers the geocaching permits for Three Rivers). My caches probably will not be allowed to stay since I forgot they consider Bush Lake and Hyland lake to be one park and we've got a BUNCH of caches around Bush.

Anyway, Marlene asked me something I couldn't answer regarding reducing the number of times she needs to duplicate her work effort (and disappoint a cacher on a submission). Seems that during the course of normal cache turnover (yes, some people actually archive and remove old caches to make room for others to enjoy hiding) the final step of notifying Marlene that a cache is now gone is sometimes being forgotten. As a result, another cacher might - and has on several occasions - submitted a new cache placement request for her that is too close to the archived cache location (which she still has recorded as being active since she was not notified).

My guess is that the bulk of cachers that do archive take the final step and notify Marlene, but enough don't that she's taking the time to review only to see that the cache won't be allowed and then she hears from the submitter that there is an archived cache that needs to be removed from her books - so she does that and then does another review of the submission.

So she asked for help in identifying a strategy to reduce the chances that this set of circumstances happens as we go forward.

We just had this happen with caches we placed. There were archived caches in Elm Creek that she still has on her active list. The Mr. and I discussed this (OK, I talked and he pretended to listen) and raised the possibility of just listing the active caches on any future submissions. I know it's more work, but I walked 4 miles and don't want to have to go out and pick up my containers!

We had a discussion about this type of thing on another thread recently. Maybe Three Rivers could enroll as a basic member (so there'd be no charge) and watchlist the caches in their parks so they'd know about archival (and other activity)._________________Sig line? I don't need no stinking sig line!

I'll contact Marlene and get a thread started with her. I want to discuss the geocaching policy as a whole, so this is the opportune time._________________Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

We had a discussion about this type of thing on another thread recently. Maybe Three Rivers could enroll as a basic member (so there'd be no charge) and watchlist the caches in their parks so they'd know about archival (and other activity).

Yeah, that would be funny. They would be so annoyed with all the found logs. I am guessing that they would miss most of the archived because they would just ignore the emails after a little while.

However they could easily use the map feature to look at the caches that are active._________________~~ I was told all I needed was a GPS. I wanted everything else. ~~

We had a discussion about this type of thing on another thread recently. Maybe Three Rivers could enroll as a basic member (so there'd be no charge) and watchlist the caches in their parks so they'd know about archival (and other activity).

Someone could send print copies of an active watchlist, bookmarks or PQs of active caches to help update them monthly or quarterly...?